關於愛，我是個小學生。

Why I Am Not A Christian 
by Bertrand Russell

為何我不是基督徒？
羅素 著

As your Chairman has told you, the subject about which I am going to speak to you tonight is "Why I Am Not a Christian." Perhaps it would be as well, first of all, to try to make out what one means by the word Christian. It is used these days in a very loose sense by a great many people. Some people mean no more by it than a person who attempts to live a good life. In that sense I suppose there would be Christians in all sects and creeds; but I do not think that that is the proper sense of the word, if only because it would imply that all the people who are not Christians -- all the Buddhists, Confucians, Mohammedans, and so on -- are not trying to live a good life. I do not mean by a Christian any person who tries to live decently according to his lights. I think that you must have a certain amount of definite belief before you have a right to call yourself a Christian. The word does not have quite such a full-blooded meaning now as it had in the times of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. a man said that he was a Christian it was known what he meant. You accepted a whole collection of creeds which were set out with great precision, and every single syllable of those creeds you believed with the whole strength of your convictions.

正如主席所言，今晚演講題目為「為什麼我不是基督教徒」。首先，我們應該釐清一般人所謂「基督徒」一詞之含義。現今許多人仍未確切掌握該詞精義。或謂基督徒乃指欲求幸福生活者。照這樣說來，我想各種宗教、教派中皆滿有基督徒了。所以我看這不是該詞本意，最大的理由是：言外之意就是凡不是基督教徒的人；一切佛教徒、儒家、回教徒等，都不願追求幸福生活。我說的基督徒，並不是按著自己的想法規矩過生活的人。有權自稱為基督徒者，必具有某種程度之確切信仰。今日的「基督徒」一詞已不如聖奧古斯丁時代和聖湯馬斯阿奎那時代一般明確。當年，有人自稱是基督徒，則此意思表示明確：這代表此人願意接受整套嚴謹精確制定之信條，而且誠心堅定地相信這些信條的每一字句。

【論證與主張】'Some people mean' 不構成自身主張，if p = q, it is not necessarily right ~p is not q.，'In those days, if...' 定義未必為真。 【按】今後全文中，筆者認為與主題無關或無異議之論證與主張，限於篇幅，先行一併略過。

【問題與意見】說了這麼多，那麼，「基督徒」到底是甚麼人？還是不清楚。若真如羅氏所言先須明確定義基督徒定義，為何不先就教專業、或集思討論？為何要一直「我認為」、「我想」？然後把一切論證基礎架構在假設上？

What Is a Christian?
Nowadays it is not quite that. We have to be a little more vague in our meaning of Christianity. I think, however, that there are two different items which are quite essential to anybody calling himself a Christian. The first is one of a dogmatic nature -- namely, that you must believe in God and immortality. If you do not believe in those two things, I do not think that you can properly call yourself a Christian. Then, further than that, as the name implies, you must have some kind of belief about Christ. The Mohammedans, for instance, also believe in God and in immortality, and yet they would not call themselves Christians. I think you must have at the very lowest the belief that Christ was, if not divine, at least the best and wisest of men. If you are not going to believe that much about Christ, I do not think you have any right to call yourself a Christian. Of course, there is another sense, which you find in Whitaker's Almanack and in geography books, where the population of the world is said to be divided into Christians, Mohammedans, Buddhists, fetish worshipers, and so on; and in that sense we are all Christians. The geography books count us all in, but that is a purely geographical sense, which I suppose we can ignore.Therefore I take it that when I tell you why I am not a Christian I have to tell you two different things: first, why I do not believe in God and in immortality; and, secondly, why I do not think that Christ was the best and wisest of men, although I grant him a very high degree of moral goodness.  But for the successful efforts of unbelievers in the past, I could not take so elastic a definition of Christianity as that. As I said before, in olden days it had a much more full-blooded sense. For instance, it included he belief in hell. Belief in eternal hell-fire was an essential item of Christian belief until pretty recent times. In this country, as you know, it ceased to be an essential item because of a decision of the Privy Council, and from that decision the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York dissented; but in this country our religion is settled by Act of Parliament, and therefore the Privy Council was able to override their Graces and hell was no longer necessary to a Christian. Consequently I shall not insist that a Christian must believe in hell.

何謂基督徒？
現在已不若以往。基督教這個詞的含義已變得稍含混一些。不過，我認為有兩條是每個自命為基督教徒的人都不可不具備的：第一是教義性的，就是必須信仰上帝和永生。你如果並不信仰這兩點，我看你就不能很適當地自稱為基督教徒。其次，顧名思義，你必須對基督有某種的信仰。舉例來說，回教徒也信奉上帝和永生，然而他們決不自稱為基督教徒。我認為至少要相信耶穌即便不是神，至少也是人類中最有道德、最有智慧的。如果對於基督連這等信心都沒有，根本沒有權利自命為基督徒。在懷特克編著的地理學著作上還可看到另一種說法，這類書籍把世界人口區分為基督徒、回教徒、佛教徒、崇物者等；而根據這一意義，我們就成了基督徒。地理書籍把我們算進去了，但這純粹是地理學的含義，個人認為可以完全不去理會這些。綜上所述，要說明我為什麼不是基督徒這個問題，就須從以下兩個不同方面加以闡述：首先，必須說明我為什麼不信仰上帝和永生，其次，說明我為什麼認為耶穌並不是最有道德智慧的人，儘管我承認其道德感十分高尚。如果不是由於非基督徒過去卓越的努力，我不能如現在這般對基督教這個詞採用如此靈活的定義。正如前面所指出，在古老過去，這個詞的定義要嚴謹確切得多。比如：相信地獄的存在。直到不久以前，地獄中有永遠的烈火，還是基督教信仰中不可或缺的部分。大家知道，由於英國樞密院的決策，這一條才被取消了，而坎特伯雷大主教和約克大主教還曾對此持有異議。但是在我們國家裏，國會法令可以左右我們的宗教，因此樞密院才能夠無視兩位主教大人，使基督徒不再需要相信地獄了。既然如此，我便不必硬說基督徒必須相信地獄的存在了。

【論證與主張】[基督徒] 定義域不明，命題待證；引用地理學人口編目法，暗示宗教身分分類的含混不清。至此羅氏對此定義仍未進行嚴密之數學性界定。

【問題與意見】0. 依舊，為何要一直「我認為」、「我想」？然後把一切論證基礎架構在假設上？1. 我是不是基督徒？照羅氏說法，第一、相信  上帝及永生；第二、相信  耶穌至少是賢者，我勉強說是；因為我不喜歡被歸類至以略帶輕蔑的口吻描述這個自設且有疑慮的定義；同時，羅氏也懷疑聖經的真確性，所以對  耶穌有如此之描述 (I think you must have at the ...) 相信這在許多信徒眼中，已算是侮辱了。不論如何，我只知道：我「相信 」(faith)   上帝創造萬有、  耶穌基督拯救世人並賜人永生、聖經是  上帝的教誨。永生之道，若你願意，口裡承認，心裡相信，垂手可得，有必要弄得那麼複雜嗎？2.  政治干預  上帝的見解 (Privy Council)？不可思議！若是可行，豈不任何人皆可更動聖經？難怪羅氏語中見嗤。3. 本文逐漸進入高潮，若羅氏能提出有力辯證推翻  上帝、耶穌基督、及聖經的存在與可信，其成就將為人類史數千年來空前之義舉，人類文明最雄偉壯麗之反動。

【待續】